[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 8 (Wednesday, February 6, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H146-H154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 342 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 342
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of Wednesday, February 6, 2002, for the
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules
relating to the following measures:
(1) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) expressing
the sense of the House of Representatives that the scheduled
tax relief provided for by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed by a bipartisan majority in
Congress should not be suspended or repealed.
(2) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82) recognizing the
91st birthday of Ronald Reagan.
(3) The resolution (H. Res. 340) recognizing and honoring
Jack Shea, Olympic gold medalist in speed skating, for his
many contributions to the Nation and to his community
throughout his life.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides
that it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of
Wednesday, February 6, 2002, for the Speaker to entertain motions that
the House suspend the rules relating to the following measures: the
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 312, expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that the scheduled tax relief provided for by
the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, passed
by a bipartisan majority in Congress, should not be suspended or
repealed;
Second, the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 82, recognizing the 91st
birthday of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan; and,
Three, the resolution, H. Res. 340, recognizing and honoring Jack
Shea, Olympic gold medalist in speed skating, for his many
contributions to the Nation and to his community throughout his life.
Mr. Speaker, following the adoption of this rule, the House will take
up H. Con. Res. 312, expressing our collective will that the bipartisan
tax relief plan passed by the Congress and signed into law by President
Bush should take effect as scheduled.
Recently, several Members of Congress have proposed that key
provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
should be repealed, delayed, or postponed. H. Con. Res. 312 reiterates
our full commitment to all tax relief provisions in this act, including
the across-the-board tax cuts, the marriage penalty relief, the
elimination of the death tax, doubling of the per-child tax credit and
IRA expansion.
Further, H. Con. Res. 312 states that repealing or delaying
provisions of President Bush's tax relief plan would in fact constitute
a tax increase; that increasing taxes during a recession would hurt the
economy and American workers; and that Congress should work with the
President to promote long-term economic growth through a fair Tax Code
that puts the least possible burden on taxpayers.
{time} 1030
Mr. Speaker, last June when the President signed into law the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, it provided
millions of American taxpayers with the first meaningful tax relief
they had had since 1981.
All Americans who pay Federal income taxes have benefited from the
act and will benefit from our vote today, making it clear that we have
no intention of weakening or softening in any way our commitment to
provide the relief that they were promised, especially not now, when to
do so would weaken the economy and further endanger the well-being of
millions of lower- and middle-income American workers and their
families.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this
rule so
[[Page H147]]
that we may proceed with H. Con. Res. 312, as well as additional
measures honoring former President Ronald Reagan and the late Olympian
Jack Shea.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the reporter is not confused with these two
Hastings this year. This is a first for the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings), my good friend and colleague, and I thank him for
yielding the time. Let me assure the gentleman that we will try to make
this debate more friendly than the last Battle of Hastings in 1066.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has
already explained, under rule XV of the House rules, bills may be
considered on the House floor under suspension of the rules only on
Mondays and Tuesdays. Therefore, this resolution is required in order
to consider the bills on today's schedule.
The gentleman has done an adequate job of explaining why, in the
leadership's opinion, these bills must come to the floor today and in
this manner. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree and oppose adoption
of this rule.
There is no need to rush to judgment on these bills. There is simply
no good reason to handle these bills outside the normal parameters of
the way the House should conduct its business. Moreover, when the House
does operate this way, it effectively curtails our rights, and I am
talking about the Members, and responsibilities as serious legislators.
Members should be very wary of allowing this leadership or any
leadership to usurp our rights.
There are Members of this body who have serious concerns with at
least one of the resolutions we may consider today, and I think that we
may hear quite a bit in due time from several distinguished members of
the House Committee on Ways and Means regarding their concerns, in
addition to other fiscally responsible Members.
Mr. Speaker, it was shocking to me today to read on the front page of
today's Washington Post about the deaths of six people in this city
yesterday because of the cold weather. It strains credulity that we
still have people freezing to death in this great country. So what is
Congress going to do to help these people? Well, unfortunately, the
answer from the administration is nothing more. Sorry, they say. No
money for additional heating is available.
In my home of Broward County in the State of Florida, we are facing
millions of dollars of shortfalls to deal with serious human needs,
from sheltering the homeless to feeding the hungry to administering
medical care, and I spent a lot of time studying that particular
problem during the last month in my area. To the infirm persons who are
not to receive assistance, to paving roads and, most importantly, in
leaving no child behind, we are getting ready to leave some behind in
my home county because we do not have the funds to modernize the
schools; we have already dropped the summer school program that is
proposed, and cuts are everywhere, which means that there are serious
problems. The people of south Florida and throughout this country have
serious human needs which the President's budget neglects.
As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am
keenly aware of what our domestic and national security needs are. I do
not quibble with the President's request for this funding. What I do
take umbrage with is the insistence that the administration does not
have enough cash or proposed same for the other serious needs in our
country.
At the same time I remain committed to homeland security, I also
remain committed to security in folks' homes and in their families. We
need to realize that September 11 was not just an attack on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon; rather, it was an attack against
America's economy, America's values, and all of the American people.
As we fund the war on terrorism abroad and within our own borders, we
cannot and will not forget our casualties here at home. And, Mr.
Speaker, I am not just talking about the significant number of
Americans, nearly 3,000 or more, who died on September 11 or in the
subsequent anthrax attacks. I am also talking about the more than 1.8
million hard-working Americans who are jobless as a result of our
recession. Every day we pick up the paper and another company is firing
or laying off thousands of workers.
I am glad to see that the President includes a 13-week extension of
unemployment benefits for those who lost their job as a result of the
attacks on our Nation. This extension is a move that I, for one, along
with several of my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion have been
pushing for since I first introduced my plan to extend unemployment and
job training benefits, as well as health care benefits, to the
unemployed, when I offered an amendment to the Airline Stabilization
Act on September 21. My plan currently has more than 150 bipartisan
cosponsors, the most of any plan in the House at this time.
But while the budget extends unemployment, it cuts 20 out of 48 job
training programs the Federal Government currently offers to those who
wish to improve their on the job skills. In addition, the budget does
nothing to extend the health care benefits to displaced workers.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that in less than 1 year, the health
care benefits for the 1.3 million already displaced workers and their
families is going to expire. Although the recession may be slowing, we
nonetheless remain in a recession. Just because unemployment levels may
only be increasing by .1 percent every month and not the 1.5 percent as
we saw a few months ago, we are in no way re-creating the jobs that we
have already lost. It is going to be a long time until the economy will
recover enough to the point that we can actually re-create jobs instead
of losing them. Until then, we need to protect the unemployed because
times are not getting any easier for them.
As I mentioned at the outset, and for the reasons just explained, I
oppose adoption of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my good friend.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I very much oppose this resolution and H.
Con. Res. 312 that would be brought up under it. Mr. Speaker, H. Cons.
Res. 312 is nothing but a smoke screen. It is to try to hide the fact
that the Social Security and Medicare surplus is going up in smoke,
going up in smoke, because of the way this administration and this
House have handled the economy and the budget. It is an effort to hide
the fact that the lockbox of Social Security and Medicare is not only
being unlocked, but it is being thrown into the scrap heap.
On five occasions this House voted on lockboxes for Social Security
and Medicare: On May 26, 1999; June 20, 2000; September 18, 2000;
September 19, 2000; and February 13, 2000. But what has happened? The
lockbox is essentially gone.
President Bush just a year ago said this: ``To make sure the
retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted to any other
program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security
surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone.''
But look at this chart, what has happened. A surplus of $5.6 trillion
will be down this year to less than $1 trillion, and probably less than
that; a loss of $5 trillion in 1 year, much of it Social Security and
Medicare.
The L.A. Times yesterday in the headlines said, ``Budget Sells Social
Security Down Red Ink River,'' critics say. How true. How true that is.
Let me just read the implications of that from the Director of the
budget office, and I quote: ``Put more starkly, Mr. Chairman, the
extremes of what will be required to address our retirement are these:
We will have to increase borrowing by very large, likely unsustainable
amounts; raise taxes to 30 percent of GDP, obviously unprecedented in
our history; or eliminate most of the rest of the government as we know
it. That is the dilemma that faces us in the long run, Mr. Chairman,
[[Page H148]]
and these next 10 years will only be the beginning.''
Here we face a resolution trying to hide these facts. The President's
budget diverts all of the Medicare surplus, all of the Medicare surplus
and $1.5 trillion of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and
instead of paying down the debt, which is essential to meeting our
Social Security needs and Medicare, what we are doing is increasing the
debt.
One other chart. Mr. Speaker, one result of this irresponsibility is
not only to divert Social Security and Medicare funds, but to increase
interest costs over this 10-year period by $1 trillion. What a waste.
Baby boomers are going to turn 62 in 2008. This resolution is an effort
to hide the fact that this administration has turned their back on the
Social Security and Medicare needs of baby boomers. I oppose this
resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today our House has an opportunity, an
opportunity to go on the Record and speak clearly of whether or not we
should continue lowering taxes for American workers. Today we are at
war. The war on terrorism, our efforts to strengthen our homeland
security, and the current recession have caused a fiscal deficit in our
budget. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, they
point out that the recession, combined with the war on terrorism and
our efforts to protect our homeland security, account for 72 percent of
our current deficit.
{time} 1045
So almost three-quarters of our deficit has been caused by the
economy as well as the war. Some on the other side are saying we need
to raise taxes in order to eliminate that deficit. And the way they
want to raise taxes is they are calling for the repeal of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, something we commonly know as
the Bush tax cut which will give them more money to spend here in
Washington.
Well, today we have a choice, a choice of higher taxes or getting
this economy growing again. Let us remember that when President Bush
became President he inherited a weakening economy. At that time the
President proposed taking one-fifth, 20 percent of the budget surplus
that resulted from the fiscal responsibilities of this good Congress,
and giving it back to the American worker so the American worker can
spend it at home for their families and get the economy moving again.
And we succeeded with bipartisan support in passing the Bush tax cut,
helping our economy.
We lowered rates for small business and entrepreneurs. And we have to
remember it is small business and entrepreneurs that are the engines of
economic growths. In fact, 80 percent of those who filed taxes under
the top two tax brackets are small business people and entrepreneurs
who have shops and businesses on Liberty Street, the downtown in my
home town of Morris, Illinois, as well as on Main Street all over
America. We also passed efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty,
to wipe out the death tax which helps small business and family
farmers, to increase contributions and incentives for retirement
savings and to double the child tax credit.
If we repeal the Bush tax cut, that is all gone. It is a tax increase
on the American worker. And there is no real-world economist today who
says that in a time of war and recession that you should increase
taxes. But if you repeal or stall the Bush tax cut, we know it is a tax
increase.
Well, the Bush tax cut was working. Economists were telling us that
late August around Labor Day that the economy was beginning to grow
again. Then the terrible tragedy of September 11 occurred, costing
thousands of Americans their lives, terrible tragedy, put us into a
war; and unfortunately the psychological blow of that terrorist attack
also impacted the confidence of American consumers as well as American
investors. And over a million Americans have since lost their jobs
since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Pennsylvania, and
here in Washington at the Pentagon.
Today we are at work. We are strengthening our homeland security. And
unfortunately we are also in an economic recession. Again, no real-
world economists says that we should increase taxes during a recession.
Tax increases hurt our economy, they hurt the confidence of our
investors, and they take money out of the pocketbooks of American
workers who can better spend that at home taking care of their
families' needs.
We must keep spending under control. True fiscal responsibility is
keeping spending under control. Fiscal responsibility is not increasing
taxes, as my friends on the other side of the aisle today will be
advocating. Repealing the Bush tax cut is a tax increase. Simple.
Today we will have the opportunity for the House to go on the record
for every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat, to say they
want to increase taxes or we protect the tax cut for the American
worker and get this economy moving again. Let us remember, repealing
the Bush tax cut is a tax increase. I ask this House to vote aye on
this rule, and I urge Members of both parties to vote against a tax
increase and vote aye in favor of maintaining the full implementation
of the Bush tax cut, helping the American worker and let us get this
economy moving again.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, could I please be advised as to
the amount of time remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) has 18 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) has 22 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Weller), I would like to advise the gentleman that I know of no
Democrat that has signified that he or she is in favor of tax
increases. The gentleman's analogy is a false analogy. Repealing these
tax cuts would not be a tax increase.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, repealing the Bush tax cut will increase tax revenue by about
$360 billion. Now, when we increase tax revenue when people are already
making plans based upon that tax cut, real-world economists call that a
tax increase.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I would like the
gentleman to understand that last year's tax cut, if made permanent as
proposed in the President's budget, would cost approximately over $2
trillion over the next 10 years when debt service costs are taken into
account. That cost is almost exactly the same as the total raids on
Social Security and Medicare that will occur over the next 10 years.
There is a future and that is what I do not think anybody is saying,
and there are human needs and they need to be addressed in a meaningful
way. If we had no tax cut, we would be able to address them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to
suspend reality. The only purpose of this resolution is to allow the
House to debate a resolution that really does suspend reality.
It was just a few short months ago that the same people who are here
today urging adoption of this proposal were telling us that we could
have it all: We could save Social Security; We could preserve Medicare
and extend a prescription drug benefit to seniors; We could balance the
budget; We could have more spending; We could pay down the debt.
Indeed, we could do all of that with huge tax breaks for the richest
people in our society. We could do all of that, they told us; and they
even had the audacity to come to the House and say we need more tax
breaks because if we do not get them, we will be paying down the debt
too far and that might jeopardize the economic future of our country.
[[Page H149]]
Well, these same folks today are bringing up what is really a
resolution to have a straw man about a tax increase. There is no one on
the floor today that has a bill or proposal to raise taxes or even to
repeal any of the taxes that were changed last year, many of which were
outrageously skewed to those at the top of the economic ladder, rather
than reaching those hardworking Americans, who needed tax relief the
most.
No, what we have is a resolution that is designed to disguise all of
the red ink that is in this budget that has been proposed this week and
to distract attention from what is really occurring here--a raid on
Social Security and Medicare.
How does all of this work? Well, in order to finance these tax
breaks, our colleagues on the Republican side are not only picking the
padlock on the Social Security and Medicare lock box that they voted
for five times; rather, within months of having approved this phony
lock box, they are throwing the whole box away. They are saying to the
people of America that when you work hard and you contribute your wages
and you get taxed at work and your employer gets taxed to forward those
monies up to Washington to protect and preserve Social Security and
Medicare, that they are not going to use them for that purpose. They
are going to give Social Security and Medicare an IOU, and they will
redirect those same dollars and apply them to finance these tax breaks
way into the future.
It is not just the tax breaks that have already been proposed.
Yesterday we have heard Republicans are already seeking about a
trillion dollars more to extend these tax breaks and add to them. As if
that was not enough damage to the fiscal strength and sanity of this
country, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paul O'Neill, indicated
that his ultimate objective which he had shared with the President, and
with which the President indicated he was intrigued, is to eliminate
all taxation on corporations and businesses in this country. So we will
face, one year after another, more reaching into our pockets to take
those payroll taxes and use them to advance the Republican Party's
agenda.
The reality that they want to suspend is that under their proposed
budget, they are going to take $1.5 trillion of Social Security payroll
taxes and use them elsewhere. They will take $500 billion, in excess of
$500 billion of Medicare payroll taxes and use them elsewhere. In
addition to all that, they propose piling on almost a trillion dollars
of additional tax breaks. That makes no fiscal sense. It means shifting
more and more of the responsibility for what we are doing today to our
children and our grandchildren, and it also means we will not be able
to fulfill our Social Security and Medicare obligations. It means
direct benefit cuts as a result of this kind of phony resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Members in the
minority do not have any problem debating this issue. They do not mind
talking about postponing or delaying the tax cuts. They do not mind
speaking out and blaming the tax cuts for all sorts of evil, but they
do not want to vote. They do not want to take a position. That is all
we are going to do, just take a vote and let everybody be counted.
Now, last night in a kind of bomb blast against this resolution,
there was a Member of the minority that said this country ran a surplus
for 200 years and now we are in a deficit and it is no time to reduce
taxes. Well, let me remind all of the Members that this country, while
it was running a surplus, had a tax rate of half of what it is today.
We have actually increased taxes by a greater extent than when we had a
surplus. And all those tax increases have only resulted in more
spending, that is what they have resulted in. They did not get us to a
surplus until we cut spending; and we went into a surplus not by
raising taxes but by cutting the rate of spending. And if Members are
opposed to, if Members want to delay these tax cuts, if Members want to
postpone these tax cuts, then vote no on this resolution. But as far as
I am concerned, when Congress makes a commitment to give American
people tax relief, they ought to honor that commitment. To put it
plainly, the American people should get the tax cuts they were
promised. Americans should have the relief they need now.
Passage of President Bush's tax cuts, and the ink is barely dry on
them. It has just been a few months. And that was a historic bipartisan
effort, a historic bipartisan effort. Only three times since World War
II has this Congress passed across-the-board tax cuts. The first time
was President Kennedy in the 60's. The second time was President Reagan
in the '80's, and now George W. Bush's tax cut that we just passed. And
already, already we are saying we are blaming those tax cuts on the
disappearance of the surplus. We are blaming them for that. And as the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said, spending accounts for 16
percent of it; 72 percent of it was caused by economic conditions.
We need to stimulate the economy. We need tax cuts to stimulate the
economy, to cause growth, to increase tax revenues. We do not need to
be increasing taxes.
Now, someone said we are just postponing and delaying the tax cuts.
That does not result in a tax increase to anyone. Why, obviously, it
does. The American people know that it does. When we postpone marriage
penalty relief, people continue to pay a marriage penalty. Their taxes
are more because the marriage penalty continues to be paid.
Now, most of us in this body think that the marriage penalty is
unfair, that we ought to repeal it. We voted to do just that. Yet, now
Members are saying, well, we ought to delay the marriage penalty
relief. Across-the-board income tax reduction. People got $300 and they
got $600 back, and they said, this is great. The government trusts us
to spend our own money. Instead of them spending it, we are getting to
spend it.
Now there are some in this body that said we should not do that. We
should not continue that. They are saying we can spend this money. We
can make better decisions than the American people.
{time} 1100
I say put that money in the pockets of hardworking Americans; let
them spend that money, whether it is $300 or $600. Actually it is
$1,700 when these tax cuts take effect.
How about doubling of the per child tax credit? If we delay that,
then people do not get that, and their taxes go back up where they
would have gone down. We are talking about hundreds of dollars per
American family. I call that a tax increase.
If we want to vote to postpone, if we want to delay these tax cuts,
get out here and vote for it. The American people deserve to know how
every Member of the House and every Senator feels on this issue. Let us
quit obstructing this.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Would the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) stay at the stand for
he and I to have an exchange?
Am I correct that the surplus in the Social Security, and that we
voted five times in the House of Representatives to have a lockbox so
that Social Security surplus would not be utilized; can you answer both
those questions yes or no?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, we can curtail spending. We do not have to
rob Social Security.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
response.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui), my good friend.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time.
Here we go again. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the
gentleman who just spoke said that 70 plus percent of the surplus has
been eliminated because of the war effort and because of the recession.
If you only take it in a snapshot of the last 12 months, that may be
true, but over the next 10 years, we have to look at it over the next
10 years because the tax cut phases in over 10 years. What really
[[Page H150]]
happens is because the CBO made bad projections and because of the
recession, the surplus is eliminated by 42 percent by the change in
economic conditions.
Secondly, the tax cut once 10 years have passed is 41 percent of the
loss of the surplus, 41 percent of the loss of the surplus. The defense
spending, the defense spending and the war effort, the total over the
next 10 years only comes to 9 percent of the loss of the surplus. It is
the tax cut, 400 times the cost of the defense bill, that is the reason
that we are losing the surplus and running deficits and the reason we
are going to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund.
What is ironic is the fact that the Social Security Trust Fund under
the President's budget over the next 10 years will be tapped into in
the sum of $1.4 trillion. Some might smirk at that. The problem is that
what we have is a unique situation. The elevator operator, the waitress
in the House dining room that feeds us and makes sure we have our
meals, their payroll tax is going to pay for this tax cut that was
passed last May.
The tax cut that was passed last May, it comes to $1.7 trillion once
we add it all up with the interest lost, $1.7 trillion, and that comes
from the Social Security surplus that is now being taken out to pay for
the tax cut.
The payroll tax is the most regressive tax in America. So we are
asking people that make $20,000 a year, $2,000 they pay into the Social
Security Trust Fund every year, and we are going to ask them to pay for
tax cuts for people who make $1.1 million because the top 1 percent get
40 percent of this tax cut.
Somebody is going to have to tell me about the equities in this. We
are not like the Greeks, we are not like Aristotle so we do not talk
about ethics, but there is something immoral about this, something
immoral about asking the waitress on her payroll taxes to pay for
people that make $1 million a year.
What we have is a little resolution that we would like to add on to
the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Hastings) resolution. It would
basically say that we want to preserve the Social Security and Medicare
Trust Fund. We want to put that in a separate account. My colleagues
voted on it five times in the last 24 months. In fact, only one
Republican Member in the entire body, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Houghton), voted against it, and he only did that once or twice. So
they all support taking the Social Security and Medicare money, putting
it aside so that we do not spend it on anything, including tax cuts and
other government programs. All we want to do is add that on as an
amendment so we can put a little equity in this so we can make sure the
American public understand what the priorities are.
I have to the say this: If my colleagues vote for this rule and deny
us the opportunity to offer an amendment to create a lockbox that
protects Social Security and Medicare, we are jeopardizing the senior
citizens of America. We are putting them at risk. We are putting them
in a situation where they are putting their payroll taxes into a trust
fund thinking it is for their retirement, and instead, it goes to
people like Ken Lay of Enron Corporation. That is the most outrageous
thing I can imagine on the floor of the House.
Let me just conclude by making one other observation about this, if I
may. If this resolution fails, and I really hope it fails, it means
nothing. The tax cut still goes into effect. So we are wondering, the
American public is saying, well, if it fails, it still goes into
effect, why is that? Well, that is because we are playing games.
Instead of doing the public's business, instead of trying to make sure
the economy is working, instead of making sure that we have a balanced
budget, instead we are playing games.
This is absolutely a meaningless day. We are going to spend 3 hours
on this, debate it, vote on it, and it is going to be totally
meaningless because no matter what we do, that tax cut is still going
to occur. So we have to ask ourselves what is really the intention of
the authors of this amendment? Why are they doing this? Well, because
they want to play politics. They talk about partisanship. That is
exactly what they are into.
Vote for a motion upon the previous question. Vote against the rule
and vote against this resolution which is a very bad resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on this side of the aisle
are not evil. Matter of fact, I spoke to the gentleman from New York's
(Mr. Rangel) staffer just yesterday. He informed me that only about 9
percent of the population that he represents own their own home, and it
is difficult to think that people with tax relief in that district
could help themselves more than government, but neither my district nor
the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) district I think represents
mid-America, and tax relief does help those individuals with money in
their own pockets.
I would say to my colleagues, the issue of the Social Security Trust
Fund is not on this floor because in 1993, when the Democrats
controlled the White House, the House and the Senate, they claimed that
they wanted tax relief for the middle class. What did they do? They
could not help themselves. They raised the tax on the middle class.
They took every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund for domestic
spending. They increased taxes, and they increased spending, and what
we are saying is that we believe that for all America that tax relief,
marriage penalty, death tax, more money in education IRAs benefits most
of the people in America.
I understand why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wants more
government support. He is not evil. It helps his district, but in my
district and I think the majority of districts, it does not, and that
is what we are fighting for is across the board middle America.
I would say that when we increased taxes on Social Security in 1993,
when we take increased gas taxes, that hurts Americans. Look at the
truckers that we had demonstrating on the lawn because it increased
just in gas tax and the high cost of fuel. That is wrong, and it hurts
jobs. Why are people laying off people today, over 700,000 people since
September 11, and before that, we had started into a recession? Because
they are not making margins.
Remember in Los Angeles when we had the riots, all those businesses
that were burned out, how much revenue was coming to the United States
Government? Zero. But yet Jack Kemp's type law for an enterprise zone
gave low-interest loans. We put money in there. We started those
businesses. People started working, and the more people that worked,
the more revenue we had in government. That is what we believe in, and
then we can help these domestic programs.
This country is at war, both domestically and overseas. Most
Americans do not mind reducing the amount of growth. We will set a
number, my colleagues will set a higher number. Because we do not reach
their higher number, they will say we are cutting when we are actually
increasing domestic programs. I understand my colleagues on the other
side, but government does not do it better than people themselves.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker give an
account of the amount of time remaining for both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
has 7\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) has 14 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from California was exactly
right when he said a moment ago that Social Security is not on the
floor today, but it should be.
The reason I rise to strongly oppose this rule and strongly oppose
the previous question is that I believe that we ought to have an
amendment allowed that would preserve the lockbox for Social Security.
What our friends on this side of the aisle are saying clearly to the
American people today, it is much more important to preserve the tax
[[Page H151]]
cuts in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 than it is to
protect Social Security and the ability of our young people and the
baby boomers to draw it in 2007.
That is the choice today, and do I mind voting on this? Not at all.
To those that continue to say we are talking about raising taxes on
this side of the aisle, no one on this side of the aisle has said one
word about raising taxes on anybody in the past several days or in the
days ahead.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will point out the primary
reason we face a deficit this year is because of the war on terrorism
and the economic downturn, and they are right, this year, but we are
talking about a 10-year proposal. We are talking about setting into
concrete a budget resolution that was passed before the war, before
September 11, and saying we cannot touch any of that. We are going to
borrow all of the Social Security Trust Fund moneys for the next 10
years. That is what my colleagues are saying. When they vote for this
rule and for the previous question, they are saying absolutely
unequivocally we are going to go back into Social Security, and we are
going to justify it.
What I would ask my friends, those who have said, as the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) said a moment ago, we are going to cut
spending, bring your budget out, give us a chance to work with you. You
will find there will be considerable support on this side of the aisle
for cutting spending. Bring it out. You will have a chance to do that.
Last year the Blue Dogs warned it was dangerous to make long-term
budgetary commitments based on 10-year surplus projections when 70
percent of the projected surplus was in year 2006 to 2010. We suggested
it would be much more responsible to make budget decisions based on 5-
year projections. Now I read that the Office of Management and Budget
has proposed using 5-year budget projections because they have decided
that 10-year projections are not reliable, yet here we are arguing on
the 10-year projection. The OMB says, no, we should not do that. If it
was a mistake to make budget decisions based on 10-year projections, as
the administration is telling us now, then why are we blindly making
decisions based on a 10-year budget forecast that turned out to be $5
trillion wrong?
What bothers me about the game plan we are now in is what it means to
the future of Social Security and Medicare. We should be saving the
Social Security and Medicare surpluses to prepare for the retirement of
the baby boom generation and working on reforms to strengthen Social
Security and Medicare for our children and grandchildren. That is what
we should be debating on this floor today, tomorrow and the days ahead.
I would say to my colleagues that if they are looking forward to
voting to increase the limit on our national debt to $6.7 trillion to
borrow the money that they are insisting in their economic game plan,
that they voted on, that they are insisting on, if they are looking
forward to that, then vote for this previous question and rule, because
they are going to get a chance to vote to borrow, and the American
people are soon to begin to understand that we are talking about
borrowing the money to spend.
{time} 1115
We are fighting a war, and we are borrowing on our children and
grandchildren's future in order to satisfy a theoretic game plan that
is already shown to be off by $5 trillion within 12 months. If we look
at the massive increases in the national debt and the budget that was
submitted this week, and the tremendous unfunded liabilities facing the
Social Security system and the Medicare system, and worry about the
legacy we are leaving for our grandchildren, then perhaps this
resolution does not feel so good.
I hope there is a few of my colleagues on that side that share that
commitment because I certainly do. It is time to set aside these pure
partisan comments and start working on the real problem, and that is
solving the Social Security problem before it is too late.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to bring up one point that people continue to forget.
It certainly is not emphasized in the media. And that is that as we
estimated what our budget surplus would be over the last few years, we
predicted that over 10 years it would be $5.6 trillion. We are still
looking at a budget surplus over 10 years. It has dropped because of
recession and the war on terrorism and spending that we continue to do
to $1.6 trillion, but, in fact, at the end of 10 years, we will have a
surplus, according to today's number, of $1.6 trillion.
So let us not imply we are going to have years and years of deficits;
that we are going to do as the other party did for 40 years and spend
our government into a huger and huger national debt. It is simply not
true.
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for sponsoring this resolution. I
rise today on the 91st birthday of Ronald Reagan, our Nation's 40th
President, to call upon Congress to make our historic tax bill
permanent. Under President Reagan's leadership, we experienced economic
expansion and peace and prosperity in the midst of a Cold War. He
believed that cutting taxes would increase, not shrink the Federal tax
revenues, and he was right. We also know that spending did not decrease
during those years because Congress did not keep its commitment.
I believe as far as this permanency resolution is concerned, Mr.
Speaker, that workers should not face financial uncertainty just
because we fail to make their tax cut permanent. It is very important
to tell the American public about the consequences of inaction.
If we do not make the tax bill permanent, working Americans,
teachers, small-business people, small-business owners, truck drivers
will all see a tremendous tax increase. No matter what anybody says
about it, if we do not make this permanent, and this tax situation
comes back after 10 years to be exactly the way it was before the
President signed the bill last June, that is a tax increase.
Specifically, in 2011, a middle-income couple making $50,000 a year
would see their tax burden rise by over $1,200 a year just because of
the phaseout of the provision that now relieves married couples from
the marriage penalty.
I also want to point out the two central myths that are promoted by
our opponents. First of all, tax relief made the recession worse.
False. In fact, the tax cut had the opposite effect by putting more
money in people's pockets and by creating incentives to encourage
companies to invest and create jobs. The economic data indicate that
consumer spending kept us from falling into an even deeper recession.
Secondly, the myth that suspending the tax relief is not a tax
increase. False. Make no mistake about it, rescinding tax relief would
be raising taxes. That very strange item in the Senate that requires
that any kind of tax decrease sunset after 10 years has already had
some perverse effects. Under current law, people will have to die
during 9 particular months, from January 1 to October 1 in 2010, to
avoid the death tax. For anybody who passes away in 2011, however,
their estate would face the punishing 55 percent rate again that we had
in 2001. The resurrection of the death tax ensures that family
businesses will continue to pay estate planners and buy expensive
insurance policies. It is just as if repeal never existed.
The lack of permanency, the lack of predictability has real
consequences. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, I think it is especially
symbolic that we offer this resolution today on President Reagan's
birthday. We all know what a champion he was for tax relief, and we
honor his legacy by supporting this resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to advise my colleague that the Governor of the State of
Florida, the President's brother, just scaled back his own tax cut in
Florida. And I ask, did Governor Bush just raise the taxes of all
Floridians? He is not calling it a tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means and my good friend.
[[Page H152]]
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join with the gentlewoman from
Washington in wishing President Reagan a happy birthday and in saying
that, as most people should know, that this is a tax policy bill, but
because it deals with more politics than policy, it did not go through
the Committee on Ways and Means. True, we have a lot of Members here
trying to protect our jurisdiction, but it went through the Committee
on Rules. That means it is supposed to be noncontroversial. It means
that what some of the people are projecting here is not only do we
accelerate the tax cuts, which the Committee on Ways and Means has seen
with their majority to enact and to pass into law, but they even are
talking about making it permanent, which not only costs trillions of
dollars, but at a time where we find that 40 or 50 million people will
become eligible for Social Security.
I think this is not noncontroversial. I think it is something that
should go through the Committee on Ways and Means. And I kind of think
that since all of this was enacted at a time when we did not have a
recession and we did not have war, that we really are tying up the
hands of the Congress to project what is going to happen in the future.
There was a time before the State of the Union message that I thought
Osama bin Laden was what was the threat to the United States. The
President says there are 10,000 terrorists walking the streets
throughout the United States of America. The President says it is not
Osama bin Laden, because he never mentioned his name, but we have the
three-country axis, where we have Iran, Iraq, even North Korea. But,
who knows, Somalia; who knows, Libya; who knows, Cuba.
So we do not know, really, the true extent of where this war may take
us. And since we have the responsibility, I think, if we retained it,
to declare the war, we should have the responsibility in determining
how we pay for it. This is the only time, during a time of war, where
we are saying let us accelerate tax cuts and make them permanent; when
during a time of war, our great Republic always said, let there be
sacrifices, let us protect the poor, let us protect our men and women,
giving them what they need, let us protect Medicare, let us protect
Social Security, and let us protect our country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we are having the traditional debate today,
and that is, when spending is a little tight, do we raise taxes, or do
we bring spending under control? Our friends on the other side of the
aisle are using their traditional argument to raise taxes, and we are
saying that we should keep spending under control.
We are in a recession; world war. Clearly, we do have a deficit. We
all admit to that. And every time we have been in a recession, we have
had a deficit. Every time we have been at war, we have had a deficit.
As the Congressional Budget Office has stated, 72 percent of the
deficit is a result of the economy and the war against terrorism.
Clearly, if we want to get this economy moving again, we need to
bring spending under control and continue to lower taxes for American
workers. And not one real-world economist has said that we should
increase taxes during a recession. They all say, including Alan
Greenspan, that we should lower taxes.
I would note that if our friends are successful in stalling or
repealing the Bush tax cut, this is what they will do: They will
increase taxes on married couples. Our friends would increase taxes on
the death tax for small-business people and family farmers. They would
increase taxes on small-business people and entrepreneurs. They would
also increase taxes on parents who have children, because they would
stop the implementation of doubling the child tax credit.
As Secretary O'Neill has said, ``Any delay or repeal of the Bush tax
cut is clearly a tax increase.'' And he also said, and I can quote him
from his testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means,
``Raising taxes would stifle the process of getting Americans back to
work. This is a bad idea as our recovery is struggling to take hold.''
My colleagues, over a million Americans are out of work. We do not
need a tax increase. We need to get this economy moving again. Vote aye
on the previous question, aye on the rule, and aye for the resolution
to maintain the tax cut.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
the time.
I ask my colleagues on the other side, what part of $1\1/2\ trillion
raid on Social Security do you not understand about the next 10 years?
What we are going to do is unlock the lockbox and box up the economy of
America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I am going to offer an amendment to the
rule to remove from the suspension calendar H. Con. Res. 312, the sense
of the House that the tax cuts enacted last year should go forward. I
will replace it with legislation that will provide for a Social
Security and Medicare lockbox for the sixth time in the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, regardless of how Members feel about last year's tax
cuts, it is critical that we first work to protect and preserve Social
Security and Medicare. Under the new budget resolution presented by the
President this week, there will be, over the next 10 years, a nearly
$1.5 trillion raid on the Social Security Trust Fund and over $.5
trillion from the Medicare Trust Fund. It is absolutely critical that
we keep promises we have made to our Nation's senior citizens and
protect their future. This bill is virtually identical to H.R. 2, which
was passed nearly unanimously by the House last year.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
previous question immediately prior to the vote, and urge my colleagues
once again to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) on the issue the gentleman just
raised about Social Security.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. They are talking about
Social Security and throwing out all these things, throwing out
numbers. The bottom line is this: If my colleagues want a tax increase,
then submit a bill, submit legislation, and tell the American people
where they stand.
What I have done, what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has
done, we have submitted legislation to let the American people know
where we stand, where everyone in this House and the Senate stands. Be
honest. Submit legislation and increase taxes. We will have a vote on
that.
The best way to ensure that we protect Social Security, which is what
we all want, is to stimulate the economy. OMB Director Mitch Daniels
testified yesterday before the House Committee on the Budget, and that
is what he said. The sooner we return to economic growth, the better we
can protect Social Security. That was his message. A few hours later,
the Senate killed the stimulus package.
The way to get economic growth is to stick with President Bush's tax
relief. Raising taxes or postponing or delaying the President's tax
relief is a sure way to destroy this economy, that and obstructing an
economic stimulus bill. That is how we will destroy Social Security, by
driving up taxes and keeping spending high.
We have made a commitment to the American people to give them tax
relief they need. We must keep that commitment. Cutting taxes is the
right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. It is the compassionate
thing to do for families who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck.
We need to get this economy going. We need to create jobs. They do
not want unemployment checks. They would much rather have a payroll
check. Let us give them tax relief, let us resurrect that economic
stimulus package. We lost 300,000 jobs last month through inactivity
and 800,000 jobs since this House passed an economic stimulus package.
[[Page H153]]
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, let us give the American people relief. Let us stimulate
this economy.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. __
Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules
At the appropriate place in the resolution strike ``(1)''
and all that follows through ``repealed.'' and insert in lieu
thereof:
``(1) A bill to establish a procedure to safeguard the
surpluses of the Social Security and Medicare hospital
insurance trust funds printed in section 2 of this
resolution.''
At the end of the resolution insert the following new
section:
``Sec. 2. The text of the bill is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security and Medicare
Lock-Box Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) fiscal pressures will mount as an aging population
increases the Government's obligations to provide retirement
income and health services;
(2) social security and medicare hospital insurance
surpluses should be used to reduce the debt held by the
public until legislation is enacted that reforms social
security and medicare;
(3) preserving the social security and medicare hospital
insurance surpluses would restore confidence in the long-term
financial integrity of social security and medicare; and
(4) strengthening the Government's fiscal position through
debt reduction would increase national savings, promote
economic growth, and reduce its interest payments.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) prevent the surpluses of the social security and
medicare hospital insurance trust funds from being used for
any purpose other than providing retirement and health
security; and
(2) use such surpluses to pay down the national debt until
such time as medicare and social security reform legislation
is enacted.
SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES.
(a) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``lock-box for social security and hospital insurance surpluses
``Sec. 316. (a) Lock-Box for Social Security and Hospital
Insurance Surpluses--
``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget--
``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent
resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that would set forth a surplus for
any fiscal year that is less than the surplus of the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year.
``(B) Exception.--(i) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
the extent that a violation of such subparagraph would result
from an assumption in the resolution, amendment, or
conference report, as applicable, of an increase in
outlays or a decrease in revenue relative to the baseline
underlying that resolution for social security reform
legislation or medicare reform legislation for any such
fiscal year.
``(ii) If a concurrent resolution on the budget, or an
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, would be in
violation of subparagraph (A) because of an assumption of an
increase in outlays or a decrease in revenue relative to the
baseline underlying that resolution for social security
reform legislation or medicare reform legislation for any
such fiscal year, then that resolution shall include a
statement identifying any such increase in outlays or
decrease in revenue.
``(2) Spending and tax legislation.--
``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if--
``(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution, as
reported;
``(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
``(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the
form recommended in that conference report,
would cause the surplus for any fiscal year covered by the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget
to be less than the surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund for that fiscal year.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
social security reform legislation or medicare reform
legislation.
``(b) Enforcement.--
``(1) Budgetary levels with respect to concurrent
resolutions on the budget.--For purposes of enforcing any
point of order under subsection (a)(1), the surplus for any
fiscal year shall be--
``(A) the levels set forth in the later of the concurrent
resolution on the budget, as reported, or in the conference
report on the concurrent resolution on the budget; and
``(B) adjusted to the maximum extent allowable under all
procedures that allow budgetary aggregates to be adjusted for
legislation that would cause a decrease in the surplus for
any fiscal year covered by the concurrent resolution on the
budget (other than procedures described in paragraph
(2)(A)(ii)).
``(2) Current levels with respect to spending and tax
legislation.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of enforcing subsection
(a)(2), the current levels of the surplus for any fiscal year
shall be--
``(i) calculated using the following assumptions--
``(I) direct spending and revenue levels at the baseline
levels underlying the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget; and
``(II) for the budget year, discretionary spending levels
at current law levels and, for outyears, discretionary
spending levels at the baseline levels underlying the most
recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget;
and
``(ii) adjusted for changes in the surplus levels set forth
in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to procedures in such resolution that
authorize adjustments in budgetary aggregates for updated
economic and technical assumptions in the mid-session report
of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Such revisions shall be included in the first current level
report on the congressional budget submitted for publication
in the Congressional Record after the release of such mid-
session report.
``(B) Budgetary treatment.--Outlays (or receipts) for any
fiscal year resulting from social security or medicare reform
legislation in excess of the amount of outlays (or less than
the amount of receipts) for that fiscal year set forth in the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget
or the section 302(a) allocation for such legislation, as
applicable, shall not be taken into account for purposes of
enforcing any point of order under subsection (a)(2)
``(3) Disclosure of hi surplus.--For purposes of enforcing
any point of order under subsection (a), the surplus of the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for a fiscal year shall
be the levels set forth in the later of the report
accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget (or, in
the absence of such a report, placed in the Congressional
Record prior to the consideration of such resolution) or in
the joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying such
resolution.
``(c) Additional Content of Reports Accompanying Budget
Resolutions and of Joint Explanatory Statements.--The report
accompanying any concurrent resolution on the budget and the
joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference
report on each such resolution shall include the levels of
the surplus in the budget for each fiscal year set forth in
such resolution and of the surplus or deficit in the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, calculated using the
assumptions set forth in subsection (b)(2)(A).
``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) The term `medicare reform legislation' means a bill
or a joint resolution to save Medicare that includes a
provision stating the following: `For purposes of section
316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this Act
constitutes medicare reform legislation.'.
``2) The term `social security reform legislation' means a
bill or a joint resolution to save social security that
includes a provision stating the following: `For purposes of
section 316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
Act constitutes social security reform legislation.'.
``(e) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
``(f) Effective Date.--This section shall cease to have any
force or effect upon the enactment of social security reform
legislation and medicare reform legislation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 316
in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control act of 1974 is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 316. Lock-box for social security and hospital insurance
surpluses.''.
SEC. 4. PRESIDENTS' BUDGET.
(a) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
If the budget of the United States Government submitted by
the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, recommends an on-budget surplus for any fiscal
year that is less than the surplus of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year, then it shall
include a detailed proposal for social security reform
legislation or medicare reform legislation.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall cease to have any
force or effect upon the enactment of social security reform
legislation and medicare reform legislation as defined by
section 316(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members to vote
[[Page H154]]
``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution, and then on the motion to suspend the rules
on S. 1888 postponed from yesterday.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 204, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 8]
YEAS--212
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--19
Blagojevich
Bono
Cooksey
Cubin
Frelinghuysen
Hastert
Hoyer
Luther
McDermott
Oxley
Riley
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Shaw
Slaughter
Stupak
Traficant
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1157
Ms. SANCHEZ, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Messrs.
MEEHAN, McINTYRE, REYES, OWENS, GORDON and LIPINSKI changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
Record reflect that I was unavoidably delayed on rollcall No. 8. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________